Krauthammer looks at the world situation and asserts that the United States can stay on top, mostly with an aggressive (military) posture. And he suggests that "liberal internationalism" is a factor that would bring the country down.

But here's the deal: The decline has already started.

Wages have declined since 2000 and there's no sign that this country is in any way prepared to halt the competitive pressure from China or India. The decline took place under Bush Jr., but Clinton is also responsible with his neo-liberal free trade policy.

As Yglesias points out, there is no way to stop China, India, or Europe from eventually becoming formidable powers, no matter what Krauthammer thinks. But to get to Krauthammer's essay: His attempt to paint liberalism as the cause of what's already started is without merit.

I can almost guarantee that, prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, some crabbed Soviet opinion maker suggested that the "[Soviet Union] can stay on top, mostly with an aggressive (military) posture. And he suggests that 'liberal internationalism' is a factor that would bring the country down." We know what happened to the Soviets.

It also seems to me that the eight year Cheney presidency proves Krauthammer wrong. Heck, we apologized to the Chinese after they knocked our airplane down. That's strength!